26 sats \ 2 replies \ @jeff OP 30 Oct 2022 \ parent \ on: One Solution to Bitcoin's Security Budget: Complementary Goods & Services bitcoin
That's why I can't take my calc one step further and use the actual hash rate. I have to use a proxy for value, which is imperfect, but helpful for the analysis above.
I think my conclusion and calls-to-action stand, no?
If the fees are not sufficient (and the subsidy drops from halvings such that miners become much more reliant on fees), the max block space can be reduced with a soft fork.
Miners would be onboard with that, so reaching 51% of hashrate willing to implement this would not be surprising if it were to happen. I don't expect it to happen though. At least not with the current trajectory of bitcoin adoption (rapid adoption on second layer, which results in some level of increased adoption on first layer as well, e.g. for channel open/close transactions for Lightning).
reply
the max block space can be reduced with a soft fork
That would drive up L1 fees from scarcity, not from adding more value. That's the equivalent of raising prices of a good, without providing more value.
My entire post is to suggest that finding a way to add more value, to compliment what a user gets from the "fees", is economically more sustainable than any other approach.
If a proposal ever landed to reduce block size, I imagine there would be an entire faction of people beating the drum of the message behind my post. The community would be divided, I'm sure.
reply